At all relevant times, Plaintiff Hailee Bloom was a tenant ofApartment No. 911 located at 1100 N. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois.The Apartment building is approximately 21 stories, and containsroughly 247 residential dwelling units.

Defendants 1100, L.L.C., and Berger Realty Group, L.L.C., areidentified in the Complaint as the "landlord" of plaintiff'sdwelling unit.

Ms. Bloom says that on May 14, 2009, she and defendant BergerRealty entered into a written rental agreement for her dwellingunit. On or about May 11, 2010, she and defendant Berger Realtyentered into a written renewal rental agreement for her dwellingunit.

Ms. Bloom relates that defendants failed to provide her with aseparate summary of the RLTO, describing the respective rights,obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect tosecurity deposits, including the new interest rate as well as therate for each of the prior two years, at the time the rentalagreement was initially offered to her on May 14, 2009, and at thetime the renewal rental agreement was initially offered to her onMay 11, 2010, as required under Section 5-12-170 of the ChicagoRLTO.

AT&T SERVICES: DSL Modem Rebate Settlement Hearing on Apr. 8------------------------------------------------------------If you purchased a DSL modem from AT&T with a mail-in rebate offerbetween December 5, 2003, and December 20, 2010, you could beentitled to benefits under a class action settlement.

A settlement in the class action lawsuit entitled Gewalt v. AT&TServices, Inc., Case No. CGC-07-469792, may affect you if you werea person or entity in California who purchased a digitalsubscriber line ("DSL") modem from AT&T with a mail-in rebateoffer between December 5, 2003, and December 20, 2010, and werenot paid a rebate within twelve weeks of submitting your rebateclaim form.

The San Francisco Superior Court will hold a Final ApprovalHearing on April 8, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to consider whether toapprove the class settlement, as well as the attorneys'' fees andexpenses, and an incentive award to the Class Representative.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, if it is determinedthat you are entitled to a modem rebate and were not paid arebate, you shall receive a check equal to the cost paid for themodem plus 10%. If it is determined that you were paid a modemrebate, but did not receive the rebate within twelve weeks ofsubmitting your rebate claim form, you shall receive a check equalto 100% the cost paid for the modem.

In order to receive either benefit, you must submit a settlementClaim Form. The deadline to submit the Claim Form is March 22,2011. You can access a Claim Form and submit it online, by goingto http://www.attmodemrebatesettlement.com/

Visit the Web site for more details about the settlement and foryour options under the settlement or write to:

Judge Michael Silverstein said in his ruling that Beacon Mutual"engaged in a systematic scheme to divert over $101 million to asmall percent of its policy holders."

The suit dates to 2002.

Beacon is the state's dominant workers' compensation issuer, withabout 11,000 policy holders. There are six named plaintiffs inthe lawsuit.

A Beacon Mutual spokesman tells The Providence Journal that thecompany will "continue to mount a vigorous defense" and says the$101 million figure claimed by the plaintiff is baseless.

BEAR STEARNS: Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed-----------------------------------------------------------Daily Mail reports a class action case in the U.S. against falleninvestment bank Bear Stearns and its auditor, Deloitte & Touche,has been given the green light by a judge.

Investors, led by the Michigan Retirement System, accuse formerBear Stearns bosses of painting a wildly misleading picture of thefirm's finances ahead of its collapse in March 2008.

A spokesman for Deloitte said the firm 'intends to defend thiscase vigorously'.

Rival auditor Ernst & Young is being sued in the US over its rolein the collapse of Lehman Brothers and is also facing probes bythe UK accountancy watchdog.

The parties to the Securities Action will meet and confer on adiscovery schedule, including a pretrial conference during theweek of March 21, 2011, to be approved by the Court.

The suit follows a federal civil suit filed by the U.S. JusticeDepartment and former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox againstthe Blues, alleging the Blues use of the contracts stiflescompetition and drives up consumers' insurance costs.

On Jan. 20, the Justice Department and Attorney General's officefiled an answer opposing Blue Cross' December motion that asked ajudge to dismiss the suit.

CAPITAL FIN'L: Wants Arbitration Claims Merged as Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Bruce Kelly, writing for Investment News, reports a cash strappedindependent broker-dealer that sold $65.3 million in high-risk oiland gas private placements is seeking to combine 36 separatearbitration claims and lawsuits as part of a class actionsettlement.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge in U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Texas ordered that all arbitration claims andlawsuits against Capital Financial Services Inc. be halted untilhe can decide if they should all become part of a single classaction.

Other broker-dealers being sued in the same class action arepaying close attention to Capital Financial's pending settlement,industry lawyers and executives said.

Combining all of the pending litigation, which involves thebroker-dealers' sales of Provident Royalties LLC privateplacements, could save them millions of dollars in damages andlegal fees.

John Carlson, president of Capital Financial, said he does notknow of any other broker-dealer seeking the same type ofsettlement but added that others will consider it.

"I know some broker-dealers have been listening in and monitoring"the recent proceedings, he said.

Mark Roth, general counsel for National Holdings Corp., parentcompany of National Securities Corp., one of the other brokerdealers being sued, said National Holdings would be interested ina similar settlement, but added that the plaintiffs would have toagree to it too.

Capital Financial and National Securities are among a handful ofbroker-dealers named in the class action, Billitteri v. SecuritiesAmerica Inc., et al. Other defendants include Next FinancialGroup Inc. and QA3 Financial Corp.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2009, a few weeks after theSecurities and Exchange Commission charged Provident Royaltieswith fraud for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme. Provident sold$485 million in securities and developed a wide network ofindependent broker-dealers to distribute the deals, with preferredstock or partnership interests priced at $5,000.

According to court documents, Capital Financial is facing36 separate legal cases from investors who bought almost$11.9 million in Provident Royalties private placements.

TAPPED OUT

Capital Financial has few assets to pay the claims, according tocourt filings. Chief among them is $1.4 million of insurance and$120,000 in excess net capital, totaling a pool of $1.52 million.

Back-of-the-envelope math shows that Capital Financial hasavailable about 12 cents per dollar for clients who have sued thefirm or are in line to sue the firm.

Arguments for and against combining the arbitrations and otherlawsuits against Capital Financial will be heard at a hearing inApril, Mr. Carlson said.

At least one individual investor who filed an arbitrationcomplaint against the firm with the Financial Industry RegulatoryAuthority Inc. has objected to the proposed settlement.

When asked if the proposed settlement would be favorable to thefirm, Mr. Carlson said: "Yes, but it's favorable to more than us."Such a settlement would allow money to reach investors rather than"just be eaten by attorneys," he said.

According to the Jan. 11 order that froze legal action againstCapital Financial, Judge W. Royal Furgeson wrote: "There is alimited fund available that is insufficient to satisfy the claimsof investors who purchased Provident securities through CapitalFinancial.

"The court preliminarily finds that this limited fund is comprisedof Capital Financial's remaining insurance assets and the amountof net regulatory surplus capital that Finra has determinedCapital Financial can contribute to this settlement," Mr. Furgesonnoted.

The reasoning for the settlement is simple, people familiar withthe matter said. Plaintiffs who filed the first claims heardagainst the firm would receive full awards, while others would getnothing.

"Our job is to make sure our clients get their fair share of themoney," said Daniel C. Girard, managing partner of Girard GibbsLLP and the lead attorney in the Provident class action.

"All claimants should be treated equally and fairly," he added.

He declined to comment on whether he is negotiating a settlementwith other broker-dealers involved in the matter.

Provident sold shares from September 2006 to January 2009,promising annualized rates of return ranging between 14% and 18%,according to the lawsuit. Investors' principal was supposed to befully redeemed within two to four years.

Investors paid broker-dealers a 1% "due-diligence fee" when theysold the deals, along with commissions of 5.5% to 8%, according tothe lawsuit.

The Ontario Court of Appeal on Jan. 21 said that it would hear thematter. As is customary, the court gave no reasons why it hasagreed to hear the appeal. The appeal hearing is expected to takeplace later this year. The court's handwritten endorsementstates:

"Leave to appeal is granted. The costs of the leave motionreserved to the panel hearing the appeal."

Lead plaintiff Dara Fresco applied to have the case certified, butOntario Superior Court Justice Joan Lax rejected the applicationin 2009. The judge found that the overtime issues in dispute weretoo specific for each plaintiff. Class actions require a commonset of facts to apply to all plaintiffs. The judge ruled atpara. 70:

"Ultimately, the central flaw in the plaintiff's case is thatinstances of unpaid overtime occur on an individual basis. Thislack of commonality cannot be overcome by certifying an issue thatasks whether the defendant had a duty to prevent a series ofindividual wrongs, without any basis for the existence of thisduty and where the duty does not relate to any pleaded cause ofaction."

The plaintiffs last year took the matter to Ontario's DivisionalCourt, which upheld Judge Lax's ruling, but in a split 2-1decision.

After the certification ruling in 2009, CIBC said that it expectedthe case to be appealed, and added that it has a process toresolve employees' concerns about overtime, which includesescalating complaints to senior management.

CONSECO LIFE: Loses Class Action Over Policy Rate Hikes-------------------------------------------------------Darla Mercado, writing for Investment News, reports a federalcourt judge in California has ruled against Conseco Life InsuranceCo. in a class action, barring it from hitting some 50,000policyholders with sky-high rate increases on life insurancepolicies.

The ruling, delivered on Jan. 19 in U.S. District Court for theCentral District of California, centers on a block of Valulife andValuterm universal life insurance policies that were sold in thelate 1980s and into the 1990s. The decision could have seriousrepercussions for other carriers considering raising premiums onolder policies, according to the plaintiffs' attorney.

The origin of the case dates back to 2002, according to theruling. That's when the Indiana Department of Insurance raisedconcerns about the carrier's insolvency and asset adequacy. Thatyear, Conseco had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection afterproblems arose from its earlier acquisition of Green TreeFinancial Corp., a mobile home financer.

To avoid having to post reserves, the insurer searched for a wayto find some $173 million of reduced future liabilities, accordingto the decision.

Conseco picked out two blocks of UL policies with lower-than-expected lapse rates and computed a pricing formula that would cutfuture losses from those UL blocks, according to court documents.

This formula called for a sharp increase in the cost of insurancewhen the policies reached their 21st year of being in force --which would have been 2010 or 2011 for the customers who've hadtheir policies the longest, according to the ruling.

The rate hike would have tripled the cost of insurance for thosecustomers, causing the policies to run out of cash value,according to the plaintiffs' attorney, Andrew S. Friedman ofBonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Conseco had told the court last year that it would not put therate hike in place. Judge A. Howard Matz, however, found thateven the formulation of the proposed increases violated the termsof the policies. The judge noted that the policies require theinsurer to determine its cost of insurance rates based on futuremortality experience -- which does not include lapse and interestfactors.

Mr. Friedman cautioned that poor pricing may tempt other insurersto raise premiums on older UL policies, but he said he has notheard of any other carrier attempting to raise premiums the wayConseco did.

"There may be a broader impact on older policies that might be outthere to the extent that companies are raising rates," he said.

"The subtext here is that the policies were designed to beprofitable in the early years and unprofitable later,"Mr. Friedman added. "These rate increases wouldn't have hit untilyear 21. These are people who have paid dutifully for 20 yearsand have the rug pulled out from under them."

Conseco Life plans to fight the decision.

"We were disappointed in the ruling and we intend to appeal," saidTony Zehnder, a spokesman for CNO Financial Group, Conseco Life'sparent.

On December 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint,styled Goodman v. Watson, et al., was filed in the Court ofChancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the directorsof the Company, as well as certain of the former directors ofTriplecrown Acquisition Corp., the entity with which the Companycompleted its business combination in October 2009. The putativeclass is made up of holders of Triplecrown's common stock as ofSeptember 30, 2009, the record date for the stockholders' meetingheld to approve the Company's merger with Triplecrown. Thecomplaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciaryduties and their duty of disclosure in connection with thebusiness combination. The plaintiff was seeking, as alternativeremedies, damages in the amount of approximately $9.74 per share,to have Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed prorata to members of the putative class, a quasi-appraisal remedyfor members of the putative class, and an opportunity for membersof the putative class to exercise conversion rights in connectionwith the business combination.

On January 18, 2011, the Company and the defendants entered into astipulation of settlement with the plaintiff. Pursuant to theStipulation, the class action will be resolved, and all claimswill be dropped, in exchange for an aggregate payment to the classof up to $1.4 million, of which $550,000 will be paid by theCompany and the balance will be paid by the Company's insurancecarrier.

The Stipulation is subject to review and approval by the Court ofChancery, and is subject to potential objections by permissibleclaimants. If the Stipulation is approved, members of theputative class will be sent additional information relating totheir rights in relation to the settlement and instructions on howto participate in such settlement.

JAPAN: Hepatitis B Patients Accept Settlement in Vaccine Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Today reports Japanese Hepatitis B patients who sued thegovernment after they supposedly caught the disease during avaccination exercise have agreed to accept a settlement, whichwill cost the state up to JPY3.2 trillion ($49.7 billion).

The plaintiffs agreed to the plan on condition that the governmentissue an apology and offer them compensation, the Kyodo Newsagency reported on Jan. 23.

At least 440,000 people nationwide are believed to have beeninfected by the repeated use of needles during group vaccinationsdecades ago. About 630 people have filed damages suits in 10district courts across Japan.

The Sapporo District Court proposed earlier this month that thegovernment pay JPY12.5 million to JPY36 million in damages to thepatients based on their condition, on top of JPY500,000 each incompensation.

"It was a tough decision but we decided to accept the proposal toswiftly end this issue," the plaintiffs said in a statement, theagency reported.

The government is also considering to pass a law to offercompensation to include those not involved in the lawsuits.

It remains unclear where the government will find the funding topay off the compensation claims over the next 30 years.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that thegovernment had "no plans yet" on how to cover the compensationpackage, the agency reported.

The vaccination exercises have been rolled out for schoolchildrensince 1948 and needles are believed to have been used for repeatedinoculations until the '80s, the agency said.

In a landmark case in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in favor offive people who had sued the state after they had contractedHepatitis B through mass vaccinations.

JENNIE-O: Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Overtime Suit-------------------------------------------------------------David Phelps, writing for Star Tribune, reports turkey giantJennie-O is not required to pay its workers for the time it takesto put on and take off their production-line uniforms, a practiceknown in the trade as "donning and doffing," under a ruling lastweek by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The appeals court decision upholds a similar finding in HennepinCounty District Court that the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Actdoes not apply to the workers if they are paid overtime at 40hours per week, not 48 hours as set by state law.

"A claim for unpaid overtime compensation under [the state law]fails as a matter of law if the amount of compensation received bya plaintiff for a workweek exceeds the amount required to be paidunder the act for that workweek," Judge Gordon Shumaker wrote forthe appeals court.

The ruling potentially ends a six-year dispute in a case that wasclosely watched by other Minnesota businesses.

"This would have been a big deal if it had gone the other way,"said Joe Schmitt, an employment attorney with Nilan Johnson andco-author of a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Jennie-O forthe Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. "That could have createdsignificant issues for Minnesota employers. It could haveaffected other things, such as when do you turn your [work]computer on."

Tom Pursell, the Lindquist & Vennum attorney who represents the13,000 past and current Jennie-O workers covered by the lawsuit,said the plaintiffs were "very disappointed" with the outcome.

"We're still studying it. Our next avenue would be to petitionthe Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision. We think thiscase is important enough that they should take it. But we haven'tmade that decision yet," M. Pursell said.

A similar suit against Gold'n Plump Poultry resulted in a$1.2 million out-of-court settlement two years ago between the St.Cloud-based company and 3,000 employees.

LAKE TANSI: Residents File Class Action Over Sewer System---------------------------------------------------------WBIR reports dozens of Lake Tansi area residents met on Jan. 22 atthe Music Barn in Lake Tansi to review a letter to Governor Haslamasking for a review of all state laws regarding small districtutility companies, and to talk about a class action lawsuit filedon their behalf.

The lawsuit, filed January 11, 2011, alleges a conflict ofinterest in how more than $100,000 was transferred from the LakeTansi Area Property Owners Association to the Tansi Sewer UtilityDistrict in Tennessee.

"It's against the POA for the way they financed TSUD, but we'reall out to shut down TSUD," said Dana "Davey" Crockett.

Mr. Crockett lives in Knox County, but owns a 24-unit apartmentcomplex in the Lake Tansi area of Cumberland County. He is not amember of the POA.

The group that met on Jan. 21 is also sending a letter to GovernorHaslam, asking him for help in their fight against TSUD.

"We need him to look a laws and regulations that operate theselittle utility districts because there's no control over theseutility districts," said Mr. Crockett.

Herb Pallatt is President of the TSUD Board. He is also a POAmember. He said he is not worried about the lawsuit because TSUDis not named as a defendant even though the group filed thelawsuit as a first step toward eventually getting rid of TSUD.

"There has never been and there was never intended to be anycorruption involved. This was a community betterment program,"said Mr. Pallatt.

All of this comes less than a year after TSUD was formallyestablished, and nearly a decade after talks of setting up a localsewer system started.

Residents, like Mr. Crockett, are upset because they are beingrequired to pay set up fees for the sewer system, even if theydon't sign up for service.

"My availability fee for just the pipe being within 500 feet of meis $36,000. We don't have $36,000," said Mr. Crockett.

Jane Cunningham owns the Music Barn, a commercial property. Whenher property comes up for service in a few years, she's looking ata $3,000 fee.

"I'm a widow on a fixed income. I'm afraid I won't be able toafford it," said Ms. Cunningham.

Mr. Pallatt said the sewer system is being built in phases. Thefirst two phases are already built, with a third phase in theworks. The last phase is scheduled to be built in 2017.

Mr. Pallatt also said the TSUD board is reviewing their currentrates. He said initial costs have come in at less than what theyestimated. He said the board could decide to lower rates for newcustomers, and offer credits to existing customers to refund thedifference.

MERCK & CO: May Face Class Action Over Fosamax Femur Fractures--------------------------------------------------------------Patients who have developed a femur fracture while taking Fosamaxmay be able to participate in a lawsuit to recover financialcompensation. Fosamax, as well as other bisphosphonates, has beenassociated with rare femur fractures and users who have fracturedtheir femur bone may have legal recourse as a result of thisFosamax side effect. If you or a loved one has suffered from aFosamax femur fracture, visithttp://www.classaction.org/fosamax.htmltoday and complete the free case evaluation form, which can help determine if you areowed financial compensation for your Fosamax fracture.

Fosamax is a type of bisphosphonate drug prescribed to women withsymptoms of osteoporosis, or risk factors for developing thedisease. Fosamax was designed to build bone density and preventfractures; however, long-term treatment with the drug may have anadverse affect on the femur bones. Fosamax can reportedly hardenthe outer layer of bone cells, and hinder those cells from beingreplenished through normal bone remodeling. As a result, smallfractures may accumulate and cause a spontaneous femur fracture,occurring either in the bone just below the hip joint or the longpart of the thigh bone, without any real trauma.

In addition to femur fractures, Fosamax has also been associatedwith osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), a rare disorder also known asjaw death or dead jaw, in patients taking oral bisphosphonates forosteoporosis. In January 2009, The Journal of American DentalAssociation published a study detailing the risk of Fosamaxosteonecrosis. Until this study of 208 dental patients waspublished, ONJ was considered rare and limited to those receivinglarge doses of bisphosphonates to treat cancer which had spread tothe bone.

Cases of Fosamax osteonecrosis have been primarily associated withactive dental disease or recent dental work, including toothextraction. Common symptoms of Fosamax jaw problems which maydevelop following a dental procedure can include the following:gum infections; loose teeth; jaw pain; exposed bone; jaw numbness;and jaw and/or gum swelling. Fosamax dead jaw may requiretreatment with surgery or lengthy anti-biotic courses. Leftuntreated, it may cause bone tissue death and an irreversiblejoint collapse within the jaw.

Patients who have developed dead jaw or femur fractures aftertaking Fosamax may be able to recover the cost of medical billsassociated with treatment, as well as compensation for pain andsuffering. To find out if you are entitled to financialcompensation for your Fosamax fracture or osteonecrosis of thejaw, visit Class Action.org today and complete the free caseevaluation form. The attorneys working with Class Action.org areproviding this online legal consultation at no cost and arededicated to protecting the rights of patients who have sufferedfrom Fosamax jaw problems or bone fractures.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers andinvestors in class actions and complex litigation throughout theUnited States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed aboutproduct alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps themtake action against the manufacturers of defective products,drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraudissues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumerrights.

MF GLOBAL: To Contribute $2.5 Million in IPO Lawsuit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------MF Global Holdings Ltd. and other defendants have reached apreliminary agreement with lead plaintiffs to settle a securitiesclass action lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of purchasers ofCompany's common stock between the date of the Company's July 2007initial public offering and February 28, 2008, according to theCompany's Jan. 20, 2011 Form 8-K filed with the Securities andExchange Commission.

The lawsuit was filed in response to an unauthorized tradingincident involving an MF Global employee on February 26, 2008, andthe Company has previously disclosed details of the suit in itspublic filings. The preliminary agreement is subject to variouscustomary conditions, including preliminary approval by the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York,notice to class members, class member opt-out thresholds, a finalhearing, and final approval by the District Court.

Without admitting liability, the defendants have agreed to a $90million settlement with the plaintiffs, of which Company willcontribute $2.5 million.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a leading broker-dealer in cash and derivatives, providing seamlessexecution, clearing, and settlement services in exchange-tradedand over-the-counter markets. A leader by volume on multipleexchanges, the firm delivers insight and access across a broadrange of products. MF Global helps its diverse client base meettheir unique trading and hedging needs through customizedsolutions, market expertise, and value-added research.

MOBILE HOME MAKERS: FEMA Trailer Class Action Settled-----------------------------------------------------Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reportsthat a settlement has been reached between plaintiffs and themobile home manufacturers named in a federal class action suit inrelation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers thatallegedly exposed users to harmful fumes when they lived in themfollowing Hurricane Katrina.

Four motions of voluntary dismissal have been filed by Reserveattorneys Daniel Becnel Jr. and Matthew Moreland as of noon onJan. 21 in the U.S. Federal Court of the Eastern District ofLouisiana.

On Jan. 18, a court filing by the plaintiffs stated that bothparties were "very close" to agreeing on a final settlement.Victims of Katrina were issued trailers made by the manufacturersnamed in the suit. Plaintiffs claimed injuries related to highlevels of formaldehyde in the trailers.

The settlement does not apply to suits involving FEMA traveltrailers, which also allegedly caused harm to residents.

FEMA trailer suits have been consolidated into a multidistrictlitigation presided over by U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt.

Federal MDL 07-md-01873

PHIL&TEDS: Recalls 2,900 Jogging Strollers------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withphil&teds USA Inc., of Fort Collins, CO., announced a voluntaryrecall of about 22,000 jogging strollers in the United States and7,200 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled productsimmediately unless otherwise instructed.

When folding and unfolding the stroller, a consumer's finger canbecome caught in the hinge mechanism, posing amputation andlaceration hazards.

Phil&teds has received three reports of incidents resulting ininjuries to the adult users including a finger tip amputation andtwo reports of lacerations.

This recall involves sport v2 and classic v1 model single-seatjogging strollers. The three-wheel strollers have a metal frame,cloth seat and a canopy. The sport v2 model stroller was sold inred, orange, green, black, charcoal, navy and in graffiti print.Sport v2 serial numbers included in the recall are 0308/0001 to0510/0840. The classic v1 model strollers were only sold in red.Serial numbers for the classic v1 are 0308/0001 to 0510/0906. Thefirst four digits of the serial number is a month/year date codeand the last four digits are for the individual stroller. Serialnumbers are printed on the inside of the folding hinge. Thephil&teds logo is located on the crotch piece of the harness onboth models. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold throughspecialty juvenile stores nationwide from May 2008 through July2010 for between $350 and $450.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers andcontact phil&ted USA to arrange for the shipping of a free hinge-cover kit and repair instructions. For additional information,contact phil&teds USA at (877) 432-1642 between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the company'sWeb site at http://www.philandteds.com/support/

PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set---------------------------------------------------------------A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuitinvolving certain Avent and Philips Avent branded plastic babybottles and sippy cups that were sold in the United States. Thelawsuit claims that Phillips Electronics North America Corporationand other companies violated the law by making, marketing andselling plastic baby bottles and sippy cups without adequatelydisclosing to consumers that the bottles and cups contained thechemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) and without disclosing the potentialhealth risks associated with BPA exposure. Philips denies anywrongdoing and contends that it adequately disclosed the presenceof minute traces of BPA in the products. The proposed settlementwill provide refunds and/or vouchers to certain "Settlement ClassMembers" who submit "Claim Forms." If you are a Settlement ClassMember, you must submit a Claim Form to get a check or voucher.Claim Forms can be obtained athttp://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/or by calling 1-866-730-1621. A federal court authorized this notice. Before any money is paid,the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve theproposed settlement.

What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide? Philips agreed toprovide refunds and/or vouchers for Settlement Class Members.Philips also agreed not to sell baby bottles and sippy cupscontaining BPA in the United States for a period of four years,subject to certain exceptions, which are also explained on thewebsite. Visit the settlement website athttp://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/to read more about the factors that determine the amount of the refunds and/or vouchers

What Are My Options? To qualify for a refund or voucher, you mustmail, fax or email a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator byJuly 16, 2011. In order to participate, you will be required toprovide certain information. If you don't wish to be in theproposed settlement, you may exclude yourself from the SettlementClass by notifying the Claims Administrator by April 11, 2011. Oryou may stay in and object to the proposed settlement by April 11,2011. Visit http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/or call 1-866- 730-1621 for more details about the proposed settlement, yourrights, and how to file a Claim Form.

Do I have a Lawyer in this Case? The Court assigned the followingattorneys to represent you and the other Settlement Class Members:

Together the lawyers are called "Co-Lead Counsel." You will notbe charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented byyour own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

You are also represented by the "Plaintiffs," whom the Courtassigned to serve as "Class Representatives" for you and the otherClass Members.

The Court will hold a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on May 2, 2011 at theUnited States District Court, located at 900 East Fourth Street inKansas City, Missouri to consider whether to approve the proposedsettlement, and whether to grant Co-Lead Counsel's request for$2.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses and to pay $1,000 in"incentive payments" to the Settlement Class Representatives, towhich Philips does not object. You do not have to attend thehearing.

PROGRESS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, N.C. Suit Claims------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Progress Energy is sellingitself too cheaply through an unfair process to Duke Energy, in a$26 billion stock deal that would create the largest utilitycompany in the United States, shareholders claim in Wake CountyCourt.

RIDGELAND, SC: iTraffic to Install Cameras Despite Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------A federal class-action lawsuit and a statewide debate over thelegality of speed cameras in South Carolina hasn't slowediTraffic's plans to install more of its devices along busyroadways nationwide.

Seven months after iTraffic struck a deal with the town ofRidgeland to install automated cameras to help enforce speedinglaws on the stretch of Interstate 95 that runs through the town,Greeneville, Tenn., has hired the company to install the samesystem along one if its busier thoroughfares, the U.S. Highway 11EBypass.

iTraffic president Bill Danzell said terms of the deal withGreeneville are still being determined, but the arrangement fitsthe company's business plan.

"Our market is national . . . but we started local," Mr. Danzellwrote in e-mail. We are now in discussions with municipalities inmultiple states. Tennessee is one of those states."

A report in the Greeneville Sun indicates the arrangement will besimilar to the five-year deal iTraffic struck with Ridgeland, inwhich the company agreed to cover all overhead costs of installingand operating the system, including hiring two police officers andone administrator, according to town officials.

In return, Ridgeland agreed to split the ticket revenue withiTraffic to help recoup startup costs.

Mr. Cannon told the Greeneville newspaper he is convinced thecamera system will reduce speeding and fatal crashes on the town'sbusy roads.

PLANS TO EXPAND

iTraffic officials hope Ridgeland and Greeneville will be thefirst of many customers.

Mr. Danzell said he has approached municipalities in Georgia,Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jerseyand New York about using the company's camera system.

All of those states allow speed cameras or do not have lawsexpressly prohibiting their use, according to the InsuranceInstitute for Highway Safety.

Mr. Danzell declined to name the municipalities he has contacted.

"We are in a highly competitive industry," Mr. Danzell wrote."Any mention (in the press of) municipalities . . . that we aretalking to will be highly problematic on a marketing front."

About two days before getting the green light from Greeneville,Mr. Danzell appeared before officials in Newport, Tenn., a cityabout 25 miles southeast of Greeneville that sits along Interstate40.

According to a YouTube video posted by the city, Mr. Danzell madea 15-minute sales pitch to its city council. He touted thepublic- and officer-safety benefits of deploying the company's"traffic calming system" and proposed the same program thatRidgeland officials agreed to in May.

Newport officials have yet to act on iTraffic's proposal,according to city records.

Hardeville City Manager Ted Felder said it is unclear when cityofficials will take up iTraffic's proposal.

NOT DETERRED BY CONTROVERSY

Since being deployed by Ridgeland in August, iTraffic's camerashave drawn the ire of state lawmakers and are at the center of afederal class-action lawsuit.

ITraffic and Ridgeland have been accused by drivers and some statelawmakers of intentionally skirting a state law passed in Junethat outlawed citations "based solely on photographic evidence."

Town officials counter that the law applies only to unmannedcameras. In Ridgeland, a police officer operates and monitorsradar and camera equipment inside an RV parked along theinterstate.

State Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, called the camera system a"cancer" and introduced a bill last week that would outlaw thecameras statewide. It also would require Ridgeland to reimburseticketed drivers and pay a $500 fine to the state for eachcitation issued by the system.

The bill was referred to the Senate Transportation Committee,according to state records.

Mr. Grooms' bill was filed about three weeks after a prominentColumbia attorney challenged various aspects of the town's camerasystem in a federal class-action lawsuit.

Attorney Pete Strom is suing iTraffic, the Ridgeland PoliceDepartment and town officials on behalf of two Florida drivers, aSouth Carolina motorist and "several thousand drivers" who havebeen mailed speeding tickets generated by the camera system.

Mr. Danzell said he is not worried about the lawsuit or pendinglegislation hurting the company's bottom line or damaging itsreputation "on a national level."

"For South Carolina, (the controversy) caused the municipalitiesand the state to delay their decisions to move forward (with thecameras)," Mr. Danzell wrote.

ROYAL BANK: Sued by Lighthouse Financial Over False Statements--------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action filed infederal court in Manhattan, Lighthouse Financial Group seeksenormous damages from the Royal Bank of Scotland, for allegedfalse and misleading statements before the real estate crash,which cost the RBS more than $41 billion.

The firm's class action suit alleges the fast food giant'sadvertisements mislead consumers by claiming that it serves"seasoned ground beef" or "seasoned beef" in its menu items.

The lawsuit claims a substantial amount of Taco Bell's "seasonedbeef" contains substances other than beef, meaning it doesn't meetthe U.S. Department of Agriculture's requirements to be called"beef."

Rob Poetsch, a spokesman for Taco Bell, issued the followingstatement regarding the lawsuit:

"Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican-inspiredfood with great value. We're happy that the millions of customerswe serve every week agree. We deny our advertising is misleadingin any way and we intend to vigorously defend the suit."

The lawsuit seeks to require Taco Bell to "properly advertise andlabel food items, and to engage in a corrective advertisingcampaign to educate the public about the true content of its foodproducts," according to a release from Beasley Allen.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Central Districtof California Southern Division.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filedin San Antonio, Texas against the Company's Baptist Health Systemsubsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospitalsystems in San Antonio. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege thatthe three hospital system defendants conspired with each other andwith other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress thecompensation levels of registered nurses employed at theconspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging incertain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws. Thecomplaint alleges two separate claims. The first count assertsthat the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federalSherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restraincompetition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation. Thesecond count alleges that the defendant hospital systems alsoviolated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage,salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having theeffect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limitingcompetition for nurses based on their compensation. The class onwhose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged tocomprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitalssince June 20, 2002. The suit seeks unspecified damages, treblingof this damage amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs andattorneys fees. From 2006 through April 2008 the Company and theplaintiffs worked on producing documents to each other relatingto, and supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, theissue of whether the court will certify a class in this suit. InApril 2008 the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling onplaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company believesthat the allegations contained within this putative class actionsuit are without merit, and have vigorously worked to defeat classcertification. If a class is certified, the Company will continueto defend vigorously against the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this suit was filed against theCompany in federal district court in San Antonio, the sameattorneys filed three other substantially similar putative classaction lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee against some of thehospitals in those cities (none of such hospitals being owned bythe Company). The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in allfour of these cases said in June 2006 that they may file similarcomplaints in other jurisdictions and in December 2006 theybrought a substantially similar class action lawsuit against eighthospitals or hospital systems in the Detroit, Michiganmetropolitan area, one of which systems is The Detroit MedicalCenter, which the Company acquired on January 1, 2011. Sincerepresentatives of the Service Employees International Unionjoined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of all fourcomplaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in themedia, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in theseactions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt toorganize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio. The nursesin the Company's hospitals in San Antonio are currently notmembers of any union. Of the four other similar cases filed in2006, only the Chicago case has been concluded, following thecourt's denial of plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. In thesuit in Detroit, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for classcertification and DMC has filed a motion for summary judgment andboth motions are currently pending before the trial judge. Theother two suits have progressed at somewhat different paces andremain pending. To date, in all five suits, the plaintiffs haveyet to persuade any court to certify a class of registered nursesas alleged in their complaints. The Company believes that theallegations in the Detroit suit are also without merit and theCompany intends to continue to defend against this suit as well asits similar suit in San Antonio.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/-- owns and operates 17 acute care hospitals and complementaryfacilities and services in Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona;San Antonio, Texas; and Massachusetts. Vanguard's strategy is todevelop locally branded, comprehensive healthcare deliverynetworks in urban markets. Vanguard will pursue acquisitionswhere there are opportunities to partner with leading deliverysystems in new urban markets or to increase its presence inexisting markets. Upon acquiring a facility or network offacilities, Vanguard implements strategic and operationalimprovement initiatives including expanding services,strengthening relationships with physicians and managed careorganizations, recruiting new physicians and upgrading informationsystems and other capital equipment. These strategies improvequality and network coverage in a cost effective and accessiblemanner for the communities Vanguard serves.

WESTAFF INC: April 27 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set---------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on January 21 disclosed that the SuperiorCourt of the State of California County of Contra Costa hasapproved the following announcement of a proposed class actionsettlement that would benefit owners of common stock of Westaff,Inc. (Nasdaq:WSTF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND HEARINGTHEREON

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO OWNED THE COMMON STOCK OF WESTAFF, INC. AND 1)WERE ENTITLED TO VOTE AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OFWESTAFF, INC. ON MARCH 17, 2009 ON THE MERGER BY AND AMONGWESTAFF, INC., KOOSHAREM CORPORATION, AND SELECT MERGER SUB INC.,A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF KOOSHAREM, (THE "MERGER"), OR 2)WHOSE WESTAFF STOCK WAS CONVERTED INTO THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE $1.25PER SHARE IN CASH AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER, AND WHO WERE NOTAFFILIATED WITH DEFENDANTS AT THE TIME OF THE MERGER (ALL SUCHPERSONS ARE "CLASS MEMBERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the SuperiorCourt for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, that ahearing will be held on April 27, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. before theHonorable Barry P. Goode, Superior Court Judge of the SuperiorCourt for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, 725Court Street, Dept. 17, Room 301, Martinez, CA 94553 (the"Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whetherthe proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $1,642,500, plusinterest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, andadequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute thesettlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whetherthe application for an award of attorneys' fees of one-third ofthe Settlement Amount and reimbursement of expenses of not morethan $90,000 should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigationshould be dismissed with prejudice.

If you owned Westaff, Inc. common stock as of the close of tradingon February 20, 2009 or exchanged your shares for the right toreceive $1.25 in cash in the Merger, your rights may be affectedby the Settlement of this action. If you have not received adetailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and acopy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies bywriting to:

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distributionof the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim andRelease no later than April 8, 2011, establishing that you areentitled to recovery. You will be bound by any judgment renderedin the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or theRequest for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expensesmust be mailed or delivered such that it is received by each ofthe following no later than April 13, 2011:

The 5.4% in 2010 is more than the 4.8% S&P 500 companies,accounting for 8.6% of the index's market cap, that weredefendants in 2009 but a drop from an annual average of 6.5%,accounting for 11.8% of the market cap, between 2000 and 2009,according to the report, "Securities Class Action Filings: 2010Year in Review."

In terms of cumulative litigation exposure, at the end of 2010,all S&P 500 companies as of year-end 1999 had a 49.9% chance ofbeing subject to at least one federal securities class action inthe following 11 years, the report said. That percentage droppedto 47.3% at the end of 2009 for the 10 years starting in 2000.

Among all companies publicly traded in U.S. markets, federal courtsecurities class-action filings in 2010 totaled 176, up 4.7% from2009 but 9.7% below the annual average of 195 filings between 1997and 2009, the report said.

Filings totaled 104 in the second half of last year, rising from72 in the first six months of 2010.

Filings related to the credit crisis fell in the full year 2010 to13, a 76.4% decrease from 2009 and an 87% decrease from 2008.

"As the wave of credit-crisis filings subsided, filings in thefinancial sector decreased, as financial companies were defendantsin 24.4% of 2010 filings compared with 47% in 2009," the 39-pagereport said.

Among financial companies in S&P 500 last year, 10.3% were nameddefendants in a federal securities class action, down from 13.1%in 2009 and down from a 10-year historical average through 2009 of11.8%. Those companies subjected to filings in 2010 accounted for31.8% of the index's financial sector market cap, down from 38.3%in 2009. (The market capitalization is based on the final day oftrading in the previous year).

The health-care sector had the largest concentration of filingsamong S&P 500 companies in 2010, at 15.4%, up from 3.7% in 2009.Those companies subjected to filings in 2010 accounted for 33.7%of the sector's market cap, up from only 1.7% in 2009.

In 2010, there were no filings against S&P 500 companies in theconsumer staples, industrial, telecommunication services andutilities sectors.

For 2010, a total of $474 billion of defendant firms' market valuewas lost from the trading day with the highest marketcapitalization during the class-action period to the trading dayimmediately following the end of the class-action period, thereport shows. That's down from $550 billion in 2009.

By another measure, the report shows a total $72 billion loss inthe defendant firms' market value from the trading day immediatelypreceding the end of the class-action period and the trading dayimmediately following it. That's down from $84 billion in 2009.

The broader range measure of a decline in market capitalizationgenerally includes factors unrelated to the allegations in thesecurities litigation, such as industry and market dynamics, whilethe one-day measure tends to focus the market-capitalization losson the class-action allegations, generally revealed to theinvestor public, often in the form of earnings restatements ormissed earnings forecast, on what becomes the last day of theclass period, said John Gould, senior vice president ofCornerstone Research, Boston, in an interview.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.